Mrinal Kanti Chatterjee Vs the State of Jharkhand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 62 of 2024

----

Mrinal Kanti Chatterjee, aged about 76 years son of late Baidya Nath Chatterjee, resident of B.N. Chatterjee Lane, Ramgarh Cantt., PO and PS Ramgarh, District Ramgarh …….. .... Appellant

¶5

-- Versus -- 1.The State of Jharkhand

¶6

2.Bijay Kachhap, son of Benedick Kachhap, resident of Argada Road, Nayasarai, PO and PS Ramgarh, District Ramgarh.... Respondents

¶7

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶9

For the Appellant(s) :- Mr. A.K.Sahani, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Shashi Kumar Verma, Advocate For the Informant :- Ms. Anshu Kumari, A.C.

¶10

¶11

5 /21.11.2024 Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for

¶12

the respondent State as well as the learned counsel for the informant/ respondent no.2 (Amicus Curiea) appointed by the coordinate Bench vide order dated 16.07.2024.

¶13

This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 06.01.2024 passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ramgarh in A.B.P. No.822 of 2023 whereby the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant has been rejected in connection with Ramgarh P.S.Case No.132 of 2010.

¶14

Mr. Sahani, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has earlier moved before this Court in Cr.M.P. No.827 of 2010 in which interim protection was granted, however, subsequently, by order dated 12.12.2023 the said Cr.M.P. was withdrawn with liberty to take all the grounds at appropriate stage. He submits that thereafter the appellant has filed A.B.P before the learned court which was rejected. He submits that the place of occurrence is said to be plot no.217 and khata no.1 and the

¶15

1 Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 62 of 2024

¶16

allegations are made that boring was made by the informant and for that occurrence took place. He submits that the said plot is in possession of the appellant and the informant side has filed one title suit in the year 2010 which was withdrawn later on as contained in Annexure-3 to the reply to the counter affidavit. He submits that another title suit has further been preferred being original title suit no.48 of 2019 which is still pending. He submits that the place of occurrence is land of the appellant.

¶17

The learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer on the ground that the allegations are there.

¶18

The learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the informant who has been appointed by the coordinate Bench submits that the caste name has been taken and they have been abused and as such the case under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out.

¶19

The documents brought on record with the reply to the counter affidavit suggest that with regard to plot no.217 one title suit was filed being title suit no.10 of 2010 by the father of the respondent no.2 which was dismissed as not pressed and subsequently one original title suit no.48 of 2019 has been filed which is still pending and in the FIR so far as the allegation of taking caste name and assault is made, that is made against one Navdeep Singh and Ishwar Singh and that allegation is not against the appellant, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail so far as the appellant is concerned, and hence the order dated 06.01.2024 passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ramgarh in A.B.P. No.822 of 2023, is set aside.

¶20

The appellant, above named, is hereby directed to surrender before the learned court concerned within three weeks from today, and in the event of his surrender/arrest, the appellant, above named, shall be

¶21

2 Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 62 of 2024

¶22

released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand), with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ramgarh in connection with Ramgarh P.S.Case No.132 of 2010, subject to the conditions that appellant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or undue influence to the prosecution witnesses and the appellant shall appear before the trial court on each and every date given to him by the said learned court till the disposal of the trial. However, on a cogent reason, a proper petition to be filed before the learned court if the appellant is not in a position to appear and the learned court will consider the same.

¶23

This appeal is allowed and disposed of.

¶24

Pending petition, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶25

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶26

SI/

¶27

3 Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 62 of 2024

Mrinal Kanti Chatterjee v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrinal Kanti Chatterjee v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pawan Kumar Bhalotia Vs the State of Jharkhand

Wasim Ahmed Vs the State of Jharkhand

Arun Kumar Srivastav Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Director General of Police

Tija Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pintu Bose Vs the State of Jharkhand

Archna Burman Vs the State of Jharkhand